PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12148838

Are evidenced-based practice and best practice the same?

Marie J Driever
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In summarizing this discussion of the meaning of EvBP and best practice and their relationship to each other, there is merit in beginning with a delineation of six characteristics of quality care. These six characteristics synthesized by Brown (2001, p. 1) consist of care that is (a) patient centered, (b) scientifically based, (c) population outcomes based, (d) refined through quality improvement and benchmarking, (e) individualized to each patient, and (f) compatible with system policies and resources. These characteristics set the stage and reinforce critical aspects of the definition of both concepts: EvBP and best practice. For evidence to be meaningfully and successfully translated into practice by individuals, and groups of practitioners, the concept of best practice adds an organizational and ongoing quality monitoring to promote continual improvement. Best practice is not a specific practice per se but rather a level of agreement about research-based knowledge and an integrative process of embedding this knowledge into the organization and delivery of health care. The question "Are EvBP and best practice the same?" has guided this discussion, which has focused on how these concepts are related to each other but not the same. Best practice requires a level of agreement about evidence to be integrated into practice. The challenge now is to answer this question: "How can practice be built based on evidence and an environment supportive of this kind of practice?" The struggle needing to be faced is how to devise strategies to operationalize best practice. A beginning identification of the multiple questions and issues in doing so are outlined by Harrison, Logan, Lynn, and Graham (1998), and Newman and Papadopoulos (2000). Plus, Mulhall (1998) poses the challenging question of how is nursing best placed to maximize the benefits that some kind of evidenced-based care can bring? Research is needed into the situations under which evidence can be adopted into practice--and into the consequences of doing so. Best practice, built on a foundation of EvBP, can bridge the practice-research gap and provide a basis for researchers and clinicians to work together to translate research into meaningful practice. Understanding the concept of EvBP and joining together to devise best practice for health care organizations can promote achieving the goal of desired patient outcomes.

Explore related subjects

BenchmarkingClinical Nursing ResearchEvidence-Based MedicineHumansComparative StudyJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marie J Driever. 2002. Are evidenced-based practice and best practice the same?. https://doi.org/10.1177/019394502400446342

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Beyond benchmarking: an expert-guided consensus approach to spatially aware clustering.

Spatial omics technologies have revolutionized the study of tissue architecture and cellular heterogeneity by integrating molecular profiles with spatial localization. In spatially resolved transcriptomics, delineating higher-order anatomical structures is critical for understanding how cellular organization affects function. However, the reliability of current benchmarks of spatially aware clustering (SAC) methods is undermined by their narrow focus on Visium and brain tissue datasets and the incorrect interpretation of manual annotation as ground truth. Here we present SACCELERATOR, a community-driven, extensible framework that standardizes data formatting, method integration and metric evaluation, enabling rapid inclusion of new methods and datasets. Our analysis revealed substantial limitations in the generalizability and reproducibility of SAC methods and shows that anatomical labels commonly used as ground truths are often biased, error prone and unsuitable for benchmarking. Rather than ranking methods, we propose a consensus-guided workflow where descriptive spatial metrics highlight high-entropy regions of method disagreement, enabling targeted feedback for tissue experts. Applied to brain and cancer datasets, this approach uncovered biologically meaningful patterns overlooked by individual SAC methods and manual annotations, highlighting the need for iterative, expert-in-the-loop evaluation.

Benchmarking↗
PubMed2026

Essence: A benchmarking-validated transformer framework for early diagnosis of Parkinson's disease using cerebrospinal fluid protein biomarkers.

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor and non-motor symptoms. The lack of objective molecular biomarkers limits early diagnosis and personalized treatment. Here, we propose Essence, a benchmarking-validated framework integrating cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteomics with traditional and deep learning models to identify robust protein signatures for PD. Using data from two independent cohorts, 1266 high-confidence proteins are quantified, among which 178 exhibit differential abundance between PD and healthy controls (HC). Through systematic benchmarking of ten machine learning algorithms and four neural architectures, the Transformer model consistently outperforms alternatives across multiple feature selection strategies, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 1.0000 with only 35 features. Functional analyses of the top-ranked 35 proteins reveal enrichment in neuroinflammatory, synaptic, and oxidative stress-related pathways. Importantly, spatial transcriptomic profiling based on the Allen Brain Atlas shows region-specific expression of these biomarkers in PD-relevant brain structures, including the striatum, subthalamic nucleus, hippocampus, and white matter tracts. This anatomical alignment supports the functional relevance of the identified markers and highlights their potential utility in early-stage diagnosis and mechanistic understanding of PD.

Benchmarking↗
PubMed2025

Benchmarking with synthetic communities provides a baseline for virus-host inferences from Hi-C proximity linking.

Microbiomes influence diverse ecosystems, and viruses increasingly appear to impose key constraints. While viromics has expanded genomic catalogs, host identification for these viruses remains challenging due to the limitations in scaling cultivation-based approaches and the uncertain reliability and relative low resolution of in silico predictions - particularly for understudied viral taxa. Towards this, Hi-C proximity ligation uses sequenced, cross-linked virus and host genomic fragments to infer virus-host linkages and has now been applied in at least 10 studies. However, its accuracy remains unknown. Here we assess Hi-C performance in recovering virus-host interactions using synthetic communities (SynComs) composed of four marine bacterial strains and nine phages with known interactions and then apply optimized bioinformatic protocols to natural soil samples. In SynComs, standard Hi-C sample preparations and analyses showed poor normalized contact score performance (26% specificity, 100% sensitivity, incorrect matches up to class level) that could be dramatically improved by Z-score filtering (Z ≥ 0.5, 99% specificity), though at reduced sensitivity (62% down from 100%). Detection limits were established as reproducibility was poor below minimal phage abundances of 105 PFU/mL. Applying optimized bioinformatic protocols to natural soil samples, we compared virus-host linkages inferred from proximity-ligated Hi-C sequencing with predictions generated by in silico homology-based and machine learning-based bioinformatic approaches. Prior to Z-score thresholding, agreement was relatively high at the phylum to family levels (72%), but not at the genus (43%) or species (15%) levels. Z-score thresholding reduced sensitivity (only 34% of predictions were retained), with only modest improvements in congruence with bioinformatic methods (48% or 18% at genus or species levels, respectively). Regardless, this led to 79 genus-level-congruent virus-host linkages and 293 new ones revealed by Hi-C alone, i.e., providing many new virus-host interactions to explore in already well-studied climate-critical soils. Overall, these findings provide empirical benchmarks and methodological guidelines to improve the accuracy and reliability of Hi-C for virus-host linkage studies in complex microbial communities.

Benchmarking↗